Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01140)

At 11:58 AM 5/20/96 -0400, you wrote:



>Daniel replies:
>
>You write:"  ....you, and  Eldon and some other folks appear to be arrayed
>against
>JRC, and myself, and Chuck cosimano, and Alan, and jerry scheuler ON THIS
LIST!"

alexis replies:

Daniel you are a scholar, surely you must know that perception is more
important than anything. Now If five separate individuals perceive that you
and Eldon, whether separately or together, not simply disagree with us, for
that is a good thing, but do everything you can to denigrate and disqualify
us as the possessor of a valid position, then you must deal with that
perception. what have you done to cause it, why do theses people feel that
way? Now, you seem to find it objectionable that I used the term "other
Folks" to keep names out of the discussion. Would you really rather I
mentioned the names of the other people we feel uncomfortable about? I think
not.

>
> Why this US versus THEM position?  I won't presume to speak for Eldon or
>"some other
>folks", but all I can say is that I am not arrayed against any of the above
>named individuals.

Think about this Daniel: You give the perception of being "arrayed against "
because you have yet to actually deal with our specific objections, or even
one of mine. You give out a lot of benign generalities, as you are doing
herein, but you won't deal at all with specifics. For instance, you have
never addressed, for one instant, my complaints about a "double standard".
What that looks like is that you dismiss both the complaint and me as
beneath notice!

>Now having said that, I may not agree with some of the views and ideas held
>by these people.
>But that doesn't mean I am personally AGAINST those people.  No doubt, some
>of them don't
>agree with some of my ideas.  Okay, fine.

Daniel: No one, least of all me, expects you, or anyone else, to agree with
all of my ideas. If everyone did agree with all of my ideas, Id begin to
think I was doing something wrong. But I do ask you to respond directly to
my questions. You almost never do except in a flurry of what I am forced to
call "superficial generalities". For instance, I have in the last day or so,
repeatedly asked you why it is perfectly all right for Eldon to imply and
insinuate that anyone who is psychic is psychotic, but not O;K. for one of
the objects of those insinuations to complain bitterly about them. The only
answer I receive is that you can't be sure that's what he meant, and that in
any case, it didn't bother you. But it did bother JRC, Jerry Schueler, Chuck
Cosimano and myself. Why then do you utterly dismiss our concerns? This has
nothing at all to do with intellectual discussion this has to do with
personal feelings. We have been insulted, and you dismiss our feelings to
castigate me personally, for "raising hell" with the source of those
insults. Can't you see the difference? As long as you totally ignore direct
questions and respond in emotional generalities, we're going to have problems.

But if, for example, Jerry S.
>disagrees with a statement
>or opinion or belief of mine, should I assume he is arrayed against me?  On
>theos-l, can't we have
>intellectual disagreements without getting into personality conflicts and
>name calling?  I was really
>hoping when I subscribed to this list that "we" could have some good
>discussions, even heated
>discussions, on a variety of subjects without getting personal.  Let us even
>have a CLASH of opinions, but
>not of personalities.  Does anybody on Theos-l see this vital distinction?

There is probably no one on this list who sees that distinction better than
I do, but can't you step back a moment and see that what we are having is
NOT an intellectual discussion. First, what is "intellectual" about your
public castigation of me as an "Eldon Basher"? If Eldon in fact, feels I
"bashed" him, and I'll agree that he probably does, then is it not his place
to raise the subject? What does your intervention imply but a personal
objection to me and what you call "my ways"? I submit that raising hell with
me for "Bashing" Eldon is NOT an "intellectual discussion". Now, not once in
this "discussion" have you even attempted to deal with the objections I
raised to Eldon's words and actions. My complaints have been totally
ignored. So then WHO is turning this into a "clash of personalities" rather
than a "clash of issues"? Not I, I think!

Why is it that no one but JRC has complained to Eldon about his christening
of four people (possibly five) who happen to agree with one another more
often than not, as "The Gang of Four" which, as I have pointed out to you
far too often to really want to do it again, is a clear pejorative, and
Eldon even admits he meant it in reference to the Chinese situation. But you
never called that JRC "bashing", or "Alexis Bashing" or Chuck "bashing". I'm
sorry Daniel, to me that looks as if, in your opinion, we are "The Bad Guys"
and you are "The Guy in the White Hat"! If that's not true it's really up to
you to change the perception. If I raise hell with Eldon and you, rather
than Eldon, respond in what is a totality one-sided fashion, what am I to
think? I was also totally unaware that we had a monitor of behaviour on this
list.
>
>Alexis writes:
>
>The fact remains that I will not
>>believe your protestations of absolute neutrality until I see you even once
>>raise the kind of hell with Eldon you continually harass me with.  And until
>>you do so I will doubt both your sincerity and your veracity.
>>>>
>
>Daniel responds:
>
>Alexis,
>Well, I never claimed ABSOLUTE NEUTRALITY!  Probably not even simple
neutrality.
>But on theos-l, as far as I know, I have never questioned "your sincerity
>and your veracity" or
>anybody's elses!

Oh come on Daniel: Don't play naive with me. you know full well what I am
talking about. I am questioning your sincerity and your veracity when you
say "I'm only trying to keep peace on the List". I am questioning your
double standards which apply one set of rules to me and another to Eldon.
And I am sure you know that. Non-response to my complaints vis a vis El
don's words and actions, completely dismisses those complaints. What it also
does is render you unacceptable as any kind of mediator and it is your
sincerity and veracity as a mediator that I am questioning. And I think it's
a safe assumption that you know that full well but find it convenient to ignore!



But I have questioned some of your statements and have
>even asked for
>citations and references.  :  )  You see I believe a person can be very
>sincere, etc. and yet hold
>an erroneous opinion, belief, etc. or make a statement which is not true.
>Since I'm human, too; I
>would include even myself in this category!  Now everyone is entitled to his
>or her opinion on a
>particular subject, but in the arena of public opinion, (and theos-l I hope
>is one such forum), ideas
>can be challenged, debated, kicked around, etc. etc.  For example, JRC has a
>perfect right to
>challenge Eldon's ideas on psychism. And Eldon also in turn has the right to
>challenge JRC's statements.
>But this is far different than either one of them calling each other names
>and insulting each other
>personally.  In other words, I would assume that both Eldon and JRC are
>sincere and truthful individuals.
>Furthermore, I assume that both of them sincerely hold their respective
>beliefs and opinions on the
>psychic.  But this  personal stuff is really all beside the main issue.  How
>valid or reasonable, etc. are the
>ideas that they write about?  That's the issue.  Mark out the names Eldon
>and JRC and put X and Y.  I don't
>really care who holds these ideas.  I am only  interested in the merits,
>truthfulness, etc. of these two opposing
>views on the psychic.   But I am NOT interested in Ad Hominem comments that
>either JRC or Eldon might
>be tempted to exchange, for the simple reason, that the issues transcend
>both of these two people.

Daniel: Would you really look at what you just said. JRC talks about
psychism as a discipline, and a field of study, and the "Third Object" of
the T.S.. Eldon clearly equates that to psychosis and you equate the two?
That's hardly challenging the validity of a person's statement, that's
challenging the validity of the person. Surely you can see the difference?
Is it that you refuse to see the difference? Thus far in these three long
postings you have totally ignored, or dismissed entirely, even the
possibility that I, or JRC, or anyone else for that matter, might have a
valid complaint. That is simply unfair and biased. what else is it? You
constantly ask questions why won't you answer them?

Alexis, you also write:  "  And until
>>you do so I will doubt both your sincerity and your veracity."

I would like to know why you so carefully arranged the quotation. Why didn't
you give it in context and include what came before the "Until"?
>
>And my comment to your statement is:  I really don't feel a need to try to
>persuade you of my sincerity and my
>veracity.  I accept your sincerity and veracity.  And I know of my own
>sincerity and veracity.  But if for whatever
>reasons you choose to doubt those qualities in me, then doubt them.  I am
>not subscribing to Theos-l with the
>intention of making friends or enemies.  I am interested in the ideas,
>opinions, etc. that are expressed on Theos-l.
>If I make a few friends on Theos-l, then that's fine.   We can always use a
>few more friends.
>
>But I want to discuss the issues, not trade personal insults with anyone.
>If I want to have a good personal
>catfight, I have one or two "friends" in town who will be glad to give me a
>few scratches and bring the blood.    : )
>
>Daniel
>Once again Daniel, you are entirely ignoring the content of what I say to
you in favour of "latching on" to one or two word, or a phrase, about which
you can make an emotional scene. I've already defined what I meant about
"doubting your veracity and sincerity" and I see no need to repeat myself ad
nauseum, but as long as you totally ignore the substance of my complaints in
favor of cavils against the "form" or "style" and in favour of sweeping
generalities which are only vaguely peripheral to the discussion, I am going
to have to doubt both your motives and your intentions.

alexis
>
>
>
>
>
>